I could think of many other European countries that could host this premium tournament better and in turn promote the sport in Europe. Yes or No, share your opinion.
Real badminton fans just wanted to see all the badminton players can compete(unless they are injured or sick) Fans are tired of badminton association deciding not to allow badminton players to play(whether in last year Denmark open or this year All England) So there is no point in downgrading tournament. The important thing is let the players play and earn the living and let the fans enjoy seeing them play.
Since you started this thread, care the get the ball rolling naming one of the ‘many’ Euro countries who can do it better and has the prestige of AE built up through the years?, go on....I’am all ears.
Let’s make next years AE a future series and we will promote the Bulgaria International to a Super 1000 because they are doing such a good job and would never ever put the health of their country over the participants of a badminton tournament. That will teach those lousy Brits!
It’s a question of money. If another country part from Denmark can find the extra cash, then why not?
it depends on CAS results, and also the next bidding wont be done until next year for 2023 AE. It was a bad tournament this year. Awful. BWF seems to act like they cant wait for the tournament to end.
Agree. If you look at the previous prize money at tournaments in Europe, Denmark and France could possibly host a BWF 1000. But even if you downgraded All England to a BWF 750 it would still be the most important tournament in Europe. You can see that in tennis too. Wimbledon does not have the highest prize money, but it is still the most important in terms of prestige and importance to the players. Therefore this discussion is completely superfluous. ;-)
Maybe not France - they have isolation laws too: https://bwfbadminton.com/news-single/2021/03/23/three-players-withdrawn-from-orleans-masters/ *ducks*
call me stupid and superfluous or whatever you like, riddicule me and shot me down. this is an open forum for discussion, the fact is there were flaws the way the tournament was organized this year, and i like to hear what ppl think, good and bad. just please don't shut me down. whoever the organizer is, they should be held responsible if they do not uphold the standard. ae has a long history and prestige, no doubt, but that does not mean the 1000 series privilege should be taken for granted. ask the fan, players and officials, ask them to compare to recent thai open and other 1000 series tournament, is AE better or worse?
This is going to go round and round in circles... It is not the organiser's fault that Indonesia/Turkey (are they complaining by the way?) were unlucky enough to travel on a plane with an infected passenger, it is also not their fault that despite the information provided, the team(s) chose not to travel early. It is not the NHS' fault that the law says any close contact detected must result in 10 days isolation - it's the law. It is nobody's fault that you cannot expose others to risk when you are isolating by using buses/taxis/lifts. We don't know whose 'fault' it is that the 7 tests were "inconclusive"/"positive"(note that does not mean all "positive" despite the claims from other players etc) perhaps the manufacturer of the tests, perhaps the person performing them, were they lateral flow or PCR, were they self-test or in the lab? We don't know. What we do know is that the re-tests were "conclusive" and were negative. (not that this makes any difference to Indonesia/Turkey since it's a different situation) And if we want to talk about "disrespect", everyone from the line judge to the organisers to the other teams to the NHS to the UK itself has had their honesty and integrity questioned without any evidence whatsoever, not to mention the extreme level of criticism throwing terms like "racist" around - about time some people looked in the mirror. Oh, and don't forget the testing issues with the Indian players in 'perfect' Thailand - why aren't those tests being questioned? (guess what, nothing is perfect, especially during a pandemic)
Am interested in hearing what you think BadmintonEngland got wrong this year. How on earth could they have upheld the standard when players, officials and volunteers were subject to the British Governments covid protocols, including having to isolate is giving a positive test or being in close proximity to somebody who has returned one. I am certain that the organisers will hold their hands up and admit that things didnt go perfectly, but in the circumstances I thought they did a great job. Perhaps the question should be asked, Knowing the strict rules regarding covid in this country why didnt the Indonesian team get here earlier and self isolate for the required 10 days before the tournament,
https://system.bwfbadminton.com/documents/folder_1_81/Regulations/GCR/Part III Section 1A - Appendix 10 - Tournament Sanction Policy - November 2016.pdf Unfortunately, this is an older document. BWF can refuse to support a tournament (see point 5) if players lives were in danger. Since COVID is a new infectious disease and can kill people, I would probably think BWF need to go on the side of caution. I think you are right that there are flaws and a tournament should be run better. Look at the number of withdrawals from the Orleans Masters this week. They have the same problem. However, can they get the necessary sponsorship to move it up to Super 1000 series? However, with a year of Covid, I don’t think a one off incident can be a reason for downgrading a tournament. There are lots of countries which have handled covid badly including countries with strong badminton players. If anything, Thailand handled it better because the players had to go earlier and quarantine earlier. This is the answer you need
I think maybe we should consider downgrading INA tournaments also seeing as some players who represent the country have brought the game into more disrepute than AE acting on health grounds: https://www.firstpost.com/sports/th...ed-for-life-for-match-fixing-9183841.html/amp
List the flaws? The only concrete one I can see is that rather than giving the teams the information about the risk of 10 isolation periods and relying on them being able to work out that travelling earlier removes the risk, perhaps they could re-word the document to make it mandatory. (what do the team administrators get paid for if not to work out the logistics?!)